Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 20:37:51 GMT 9.5
>The Eagle (in 2 headed form) is used as a national symbol only by northern hemisphere countries afaik. This may tell us that the Eagle stands on the north pole.
> The Eagle is commonly depicted with 2 heads as it looks two ways at once - into the Earth and into the Solar System.
If you link this Eagle with the two headed Eagle, then I believe you are also connecting it with the Rebis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 20:40:56 GMT 9.5
>I went into a sort of subconscious journey of the Wolf. So what is your experience of the wolf? It was challenging and difficult as the Wolf, subconscious and instinctual, seeking. I cannot really say any more than that about it at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert H. Thouless on Jan 24, 2014 20:56:59 GMT 9.5
Try entering into the scene and experiencing it directly. As anyone correctly predicting events in a fictional plot knows the significance of two or more people imagining a similar narrative (e.g., the butler did it) says more about archetypes and other memes prevalent in their milieu or in society generally than it does about the subject of that narrative. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_psychology
"The belief that one can find out something about real things by speculation alone is one of the most long-lived delusions in human thought. It is the spirit of anti-science which is always trying to lead men away from the study of reality to the spinning of fanciful theories out of their own minds."
"We can distinguish as a special kind of crooked thinking the attempt to get knowledge of fact by speculative methods. This attempt is being made in any argument which tries to deduce what 'is' from what the speaker feels 'ought to be' or 'must be', or whenever a person in discussion tries to draw conclusions about facts from the use of words." |
|
|
|
Post by Fibonacci matrix on Jan 24, 2014 21:31:40 GMT 9.5
Robert, how would you describe mythology?
How do you define 'real'?
Would you argue that scientific facts do not start as speculation?
If you assume that this is speculation alone, then you have assumed incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jan 24, 2014 21:46:26 GMT 9.5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 22:45:12 GMT 9.5
Try entering into the scene and experiencing it directly. As anyone correctly predicting events in a fictional plot knows the significance of two or more people imagining a similar narrative (e.g., the butler did it) says more about archetypes and other memes prevalent in their milieu or in society generally than it does about the subject of that narrative. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_psychology
"The belief that one can find out something about real things by speculation alone is one of the most long-lived delusions in human thought. It is the spirit of anti-science which is always trying to lead men away from the study of reality to the spinning of fanciful theories out of their own minds."
"We can distinguish as a special kind of crooked thinking the attempt to get knowledge of fact by speculative methods. This attempt is being made in any argument which tries to deduce what 'is' from what the speaker feels 'ought to be' or 'must be', or whenever a person in discussion tries to draw conclusions about facts from the use of words." Do you also discount the occult, esoteric and mystical experience and interest of the many eminent scientists and mathematicians known to have practiced such methods and teachings? "Einstein recalled how, at the age of 16, he imagined chasing after a beam of light and that the thought experiment had played a memorable role in his development of special relativity." One of the greatest mathematicians Srinivasa Ramanujan claimed inspiration from the Goddess of Namagiri. Imagination and speculation are vital to creating a framework for understanding, and if the speculation is based on another's work, (at the very least our work builds upon the work of those who went before us) we may come to conclusions far removed from theirs, yet this does not necessarily diminish the value of the results. Each individual has the right to determine their own path, be it scientific, mystic or any other, with 'crooked thinking' being an inevitability. The speculation in the spotlight here, is after all, in a forum under the category of esoteric. Evidence in science is only ever as good as the instruments which provide the data, and the conclusions only as good as those analysing that data, with history showing us many accepted scientific theories to have been proven incorrect or at least inaccurate, however this does not undermine the scientific method. Are you willing to furnish us with some non-crooked thinking on the subject of the eagle in the drawing? |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 25, 2014 20:01:03 GMT 9.5
As anyone correctly predicting events in a fictional plot knows the significance of two or more people imagining a similar narrative (e.g., the butler did it) says more about archetypes and other memes prevalent in their milieu or in society generally than it does about the subject of that narrative. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_psychology
"The belief that one can find out something about real things by speculation alone is one of the most long-lived delusions in human thought. It is the spirit of anti-science which is always trying to lead men away from the study of reality to the spinning of fanciful theories out of their own minds."
"We can distinguish as a special kind of crooked thinking the attempt to get knowledge of fact by speculative methods. This attempt is being made in any argument which tries to deduce what 'is' from what the speaker feels 'ought to be' or 'must be', or whenever a person in discussion tries to draw conclusions about facts from the use of words." Do you also discount the occult, esoteric and mystical experience and interest of the many eminent scientists and mathematicians known to have practiced such methods and teachings? "Einstein recalled how, at the age of 16, he imagined chasing after a beam of light and that the thought experiment had played a memorable role in his development of special relativity." One of the greatest mathematicians Srinivasa Ramanujan claimed inspiration from the Goddess of Namagiri. Imagination and speculation are vital to creating a framework for understanding, and if the speculation is based on another's work, (at the very least our work builds upon the work of those who went before us) we may come to conclusions far removed from theirs, yet this does not necessarily diminish the value of the results. Each individual has the right to determine their own path, be it scientific, mystic or any other, with 'crooked thinking' being an inevitability. The speculation in the spotlight here, is after all, in a forum under the category of esoteric. Evidence in science is only ever as good as the instruments which provide the data, and the conclusions only as good as those analysing that data, with history showing us many accepted scientific theories to have been proven incorrect or at least inaccurate, however this does not undermine the scientific method. Are you willing to furnish us with some non-crooked thinking on the subject of the eagle in the drawing? So far the post is still there. However the qualification of "alone" with respect to "speculation" seems to have been overlooked, with the respondents seeming to read your post as if you are saying speculation has NO place in rational discourse. Previous advice I gave there was to: Speculate by all means: Then corroborate or debunk The other alternative is to set an unsupported speculation to one side, if unfalsified. Then, if it seems relevant, to cautiously qualify it in rational discourse with full, open and honest reservations. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 26, 2014 5:21:22 GMT 9.5
>Are you willing to furnish us with some non-crooked thinking on the subject of the eagle in the drawing?
Any progress with this?
|
|
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
Guest
|
Post by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci on Jan 26, 2014 17:54:30 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 26, 2014 18:25:23 GMT 9.5
Unless Leonardo gave those interpretations, I do not see how they can be evidence of any truth at all, other than of the thinking of the interpreter. Further, I suspect that Leonardo created his art to be of millennial rather than generational meaning |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 26, 2014 18:39:03 GMT 9.5
>As anyone correctly predicting events in a fictional plot knows the significance of two or more people imagining a similar narrative
I have been interested in the number of well known authors who have expressed surprise at the actions of their invented characters. For example Bernard Cornwell who wrote 22 novels about Sharpe fighting the French, notes in the introduction to the final(?) book that he was quite surprised when Sharpe decided to retire to France.
It seems common that the better authors enter into an inner world where their characters exist. Charles Dickens seems to have done so too, as in one of his letters he said that he was surprised by what one of his characters had done.
Perhaps that is the key to engaging fiction, creating/discovering an inner world that any suitable reader may enter also.
The most obvious modern examples are Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.
I recall 30 years ago in a fishing village in Malaysia, reading an entry in the visitors' book in an eating house. It said: Frodo lives!
|
|
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
Guest
|
Post by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci on Jan 26, 2014 21:24:05 GMT 9.5
Unless Leonardo gave those interpretations, I do not see how they can be evidence of any truth at all, other than of the thinking of the interpreter. Further, I suspect that Leonardo created his art to be of millennial rather than generational meaning At least they are plausible and consistent with Leonardo's life and times. What is your excuse? |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Sharpe on Jan 26, 2014 21:37:20 GMT 9.5
>As anyone correctly predicting events in a fictional plot knows the significance of two or more people imagining a similar narrative I have been interested in the number of well known authors who have expressed surprise at the actions of their invented characters. For example Bernard Cornwell who wrote 22 novels about Sharpe fighting the French, notes in the introduction to the final(?) book that he was quite surprised when Sharpe decided to retire to France. Once a character is sufficiently outlined, it becomes too awkward to attribute uncharacteristic motives or responses. Once a plot is sufficiently developed its possibilities may unfold in fewer and fewer directions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 22:46:28 GMT 9.5
Unless Leonardo gave those interpretations, I do not see how they can be evidence of any truth at all, other than of the thinking of the interpreter. Further, I suspect that Leonardo created his art to be of millennial rather than generational meaning At least they are plausible and consistent with Leonardo's life and times. What is your excuse? I for one will allow myself to investigate Leonardo's work by my own experience, with what I will take as permission from the artist himself. "Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience it is necessary for us to do the opposite, that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason." -Leonardo da Vinci He expresses the greatest of aspirations and ambitions in the expression of his work. “The painter has the Universe in his mind and hands.” -Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo speaks many times about connection to Spirit, and the inner worlds, also of the interconnectedness of all things. “Why does the eye see more clearly when asleep than the imagination when awake?” -Leonardo da Vinci “Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art.” -Leonardo da Vinci “Realize that everything connects to everything else.” -Leonardo da Vinci "Science is the observation of things possible, whether present or past; prescience is the knowledge of things which may come to pass.” -Leonardo da Vinci Somewhat ironic to use this quote, but here it is. “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.” -Leonardo da Vinci When all is said and done there is nothing to lose from speculation and potentially everything to gain. Ignorance cannot survive forever under pressure of application. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 27, 2014 5:02:57 GMT 9.5
Once a character is sufficiently outlined, it becomes too awkward to attribute uncharacteristic motives or responses. That is exactly why some authors are surprised at what their characters do. How can that occur? Is the character alive in some way? Is Frodo really alive in some inner world? |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 27, 2014 5:06:07 GMT 9.5
At least they are plausible .... Plausible 1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot. 2. well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator. I would be concerned that plausibility is used as an excuse to cease investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 27, 2014 5:10:53 GMT 9.5
I used to find that when I ran large computer models. I would observe anomalous behaviour and not understand. Then I would meditate and know what to do, but still not understand. Then some days later I would understand how my chosen set of actions was appropriate. Thus the sequence was: the problem, the solution and some time later the reasoning.
Meditating to find the solution could also be considered as a process for intuition.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 27, 2014 5:23:21 GMT 9.5
Second-hand opinions require very little effort.
I was brought up with a typical set of second-hand opinions, but when I started studying beyond physical sciences, I would daily be surprised at what silly things I believed about life and society. It took about 9 months before my belief systems stablised in their new form - with a much greater tolerance of human diversity and an understanding of the arbitrariness of belief systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jan 27, 2014 8:11:29 GMT 9.5
At least they are plausible and consistent with Leonardo's life and times. What is your excuse? I for one will allow myself to investigate Leonardo's work by my own experience, with what I will take as permission from the artist himself. "Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience it is necessary for us to do the opposite, that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason." -Leonardo da Vinci He expresses the greatest of aspirations and ambitions in the expression of his work. “The painter has the Universe in his mind and hands.” -Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo speaks many times about connection to Spirit, and the inner worlds, also of the interconnectedness of all things. “Why does the eye see more clearly when asleep than the imagination when awake?” -Leonardo da Vinci “Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art.” -Leonardo da Vinci “Realize that everything connects to everything else.” -Leonardo da Vinci "Science is the observation of things possible, whether present or past; prescience is the knowledge of things which may come to pass.” -Leonardo da Vinci Somewhat ironic to use this quote, but here it is. “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.” -Leonardo da Vinci When all is said and done there is nothing to lose from speculation and potentially everything to gain. Ignorance cannot survive forever under pressure of application. WOW ... LOVE that post Fibon..! Good old Leonardo! |
|
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
Guest
|
Post by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci on Jan 27, 2014 17:30:06 GMT 9.5
"Oh! human stupidity, do you not perceive that, though you have been with yourself all your life, you are not yet aware of the thing you possess most of, that is of your folly? and then, with the crowd of sophists, you deceive yourselves and others, despising the mathematical sciences, in which truth dwells and the knowledge of the things included in them. And then you occupy yourself with miracles, and write that you possess information of those things of which the human mind is incapable and which cannot be proved by any instance from nature."
|
|
